Churchill's major blunders.

World War II British Military
#61

Roosevelt knew that war was inevitable, but Americans simply did not want to go to war and would not have entered the war, had the Japs not attacked the US. The Japanese had occupied a large part of China and massacred, raped, tortured and enslaved millions since 1932 and expanded their armed forced enormously and that didn’t cause them to go to war. The US armed forces were extremely ill equipped and undermanned on Dec 7, 1941. Had the Japanese invaded Ceylon, Burma, Madagascar, Aden, etc, on Dec 7, but not attacked the US and rapidly defeated the British and excluded them from the Indian Ocean, American Public opinion would have been shocked and very likely dissuaded from pouring more billions on a hopeless cause. On Dec 8, many Americans did not know where Pearl Harbor or the Philippines were, much less Burma, Ceylon, etc, and couldn´t care less if the latter were invaded.

You seem to miss obvious points with great ability. I mentioned that Iran had no industry and much fewer people than India and yet Stalin used that labor, available to him for a few years much better than the British used the Indian labor in centuries and especially during the war. Oil is irrelevant in this case.
Some people seem to regard Indians like neanderthals, who couldn’t have produced anything, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Much of the slave Soviet workers in Germany or the housewives in the US were not trained tradesmen and yet they produced huge quantities of equipment. It seems ironic that Britain would depend on American housewives to produce much of the materiel it needed, having so much and much cheaper labor available.

#62

Labour is only part of the issue.

America had a huge industrial capacity which India, and for that matter Japan, lacked.

There is also the issue of transport of raw materials to the place of manufacture and transport of finished products to their destination. America was a better and closer source for Britain than India.

Anyway, if Britain had used cheap Indian labour you’d be complaining about how the Indians were exploited by Churchill.

#63

Low wages are much better than no wages for hundreds of millions of subemployed people. Harvesting tea, indigo, etc, with extremely low wages was much more exploitation than modern agricultural or industrial employment, like Stalin used in Iran.

It is interesting that Germany helped Chiang considerably to develop military industry, rail road lines, train officers, etc, in China, hoping to eventually develop an invaluable ally against the 170 million Soviets (it’s ironic that the racist Hitler would consider the remote Chinese Untermenschen more useful than the British considered their Indian subjects). However, Japan spolied everything by weaking Chiang and interrupting his massive offensive against the communists with the Japanese offensive in 1937, destroying his elite troops and ensuring Mao’s survival, who would eventually fight Japan more effectively than Chiang.

Like I said, India has plenty of several raw material, like high grade iron ore, hydraulic energy for power generation, etc,

#64

I’ve checked half a dozen books on the Malayan campaign, including Percival’s, Bennett’s, and Smyth’s, and can’t find any reference to any tanks in Malaya; any tanks being sent from Malaya to the USSR; or any armoured division, brigade or regiment being in Malaya.

All I can find is “But the tanks that might have come to Malaya were all sent to Russia instead.” Colin Smith, Singapore Burning, Penguin, London, 2006, p.98, citing Lionel Wigmore, The Japanese Thrust, Australian War Memorial, Canberra, 1957, p. 103.

It follows that whatever tanks were sent to the USSR did not come from Malaya; were not even destined for Malaya; did not leave the troops defenceless as a result of the troops being deprived of them; and that Churchill did not send any tanks from or even intended for Malaya to the USSR.

It may be that the absence of tanks was not even a significant issue in the defeat. The commander of the Australian 8th Division wrote in 1944 that the weakness in British tanks was not a cause of the retreat as heavily timbered country where roads were limited was quite unsuitable for armoured vehicles. So far as armour was concerned, the cause was more to do with British Commonwealth anti-tank gunners not standing to their guns against Japanese armour. Gordon Bennett, Why Singapore Fell, Angus & Robertson, Sydney 1944, pp. 226-7

#65

The Japanese occupation of China is what set in motion a U.S. embargo of Japan ultimately goading Japan into attacking Pearl harbor. Most nations do not want to go to War, but with certainty since the 1920s, the U.S. and Japanese regarded each other as rivals if not mortal enemies in the Pacific rim resulting in numerous changes to “War Plan Orange” which closely predicted the ultimate American advance. War was inevitable because Japan knew they could not continue their “advances” with a strangling embargo. If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, they almost certainly would have been goaded into some form of a battle giving a pretext for a U.S. War declaration. FDR was already on his way to instigating conflict with Germany during the undeclared U-boat war…

The US armed forces were extremely ill equipped and undermanned on Dec 7, 1941.

Really? Why? Define “extremely ill equipped and undermanned.”

Had the Japanese invaded Ceylon, Burma, Madagascar, Aden, etc, on Dec 7, but not attacked the US and rapidly defeated the British and excluded them from the Indian Ocean, American Public opinion would have been shocked and very likely dissuaded from pouring more billions on a hopeless cause. On Dec 8, many Americans did not know where Pearl Harbor or the Philippines were, much less Burma, Ceylon, etc, and couldn´t care less if the latter were invaded.

A speculative fantasy at best. And using over-generalizations such as “many Americans” is a tad ignorant. Many “Americans” possibly did not know the naval and air bases in Hawaii were at Pearl Harbor, but most were certainly aware of a place called Hawaii and that their military had resources positioned there. I’m pretty sure most adult Americans were aware that the Philippines was a U.S. protectorate that had been effectively a colony or imperial space as the U.S. military had fought a bloody counterinsurgency there at the turn of the century…

You seem to miss obvious points with great ability. I mentioned that Iran had no industry and much fewer people than India and yet Stalin used that labor, available to him for a few years much better than the British used the Indian labor in centuries and especially during the war. Oil is irrelevant in this case.

What is obvious is your complete lack of reading, citations, and sources. A few smalls arms factories (easy produced by even clandestine guerrilla workshops) does not an industrialized nation make. Iran was scarcely more industrial after the Soviets withdrew than they were before. Also, a good deal of production has to do with getting the goods to the front/stores/consumers, etc. and involves maintaining complex transport hubs of rail and shipping. Something that requires even more than just setting up factories and in the end, it’s all a cost vs. benefits exercise. Nothing “obvious” about that.

Some people seem to regard Indians like neanderthals, who couldn’t have produced anything, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Much of the slave Soviet workers in Germany or the housewives in the US were not trained tradesmen and yet they produced huge quantities of equipment. It seems ironic that Britain would depend on American housewives to produce much of the materiel it needed, having so much and much cheaper labor available.

What’s all this fixation on the “Indians.” Which “people?” You’re completely going off track to another subject regarding the “Whiteman’s Burden” history-of-colonial-spaces argument (Postcolonial [literary] Theory) which is a bit of a separate (if related) issue than wartime production and industrialization.

Secondly, the American “Rosie the Riveter” housewives and European slave laborers were located near significant rail, air, and shipping hubs allowing their production to be actually useful. India simply would not have had the infrastructure necessary for industrialized transport much less nor the ability to set up actual factories, etc. That’s not racism, it’s just fact. Between the U.S., Britain, and Canada, the Allies had all the production they needed. Canada alone outproduced Imperial Japan IIRC. Reliably and safely getting the goods to “market” (i.e. the soldiers and civilians who needed to be fed) was another matter…

#66

How many hydro power stations did India have and what industrial facilities did they power?

What did India have in the way of industrial capacity even remotely comparable to America’s?

Where would the raw materials come from?

Where would they be processed?

Where would they be converted to finished goods, whether as parts or the complete assembly?

What was the advantage to Britain in using Indian industrial capacity and resources and transporting the finished products to Britain over what was available from America?

What was the sea mileage from India compared with finished assemblies delivered from America?

How many extra ships and how much extra fuel would be required to source materiel from India compared with America?

What burden, in ships, fuel and maintenance, would that place on the RN for escorts?

Why would Britain equip India to produce weapons and other war materials when Britain was facing the Quit India movement and the risk of a full scale armed Indian rebellion?

#67

Care to expand on that?

#68

It also made sense for Churchill to send planes to an ally who was fighting the Nazis at the time rather than send them somewhere else in anticipation of a Japanese attack which might never happen.

As for it being ‘safer’ to send them to Australia, the ships were still at risk of attack by Germany, notably commerce raiders.

What’s incredible about it?

Do you think the British had radar systems sitting on the shelf ready to be shipped around the globe?

What would have been required to instal a radar system covering the east and west coasts of the peninsula and to crew it?

Why would radar have changed the result, given that Britain had almost no planes to counter the Japanese?

Like I said, you need to understand the arcs of fire and actual and possible Japanese embarkation and landing points if you’re going to make an issue of the supposedly winning effect of the coastal artillery.

You might also like to research how much HE was available; was fired before; and was left at the surrender.

That appears to be an uncontroversial point. It also appears to be a point you consistently overlook in your comments on how the war should have been run.

That might have made sense if Japan wanted to dominate the Indian Ocean in accordance with your opinion on how the Japanese high command, along with every other high command engaged in the war, got it wrong by lacking your brilliant strategic, tactical, logistical and diplomatic sense, but Truk made rather more sense when the economic, political, and philosophical justification for the war was to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere which happened to be in South East Asia rather than the Indian Ocean.

WTF are you smoking?

Denying Britain access to the Pacific Ocean was irrelevant as that was an American rather than British sphere of influence.

Denying Britain access to the Indian Ocean would have been a pointless exercise which conferred no practical benefit upon Japan compared with the relative riches to be gained from occupying Australia.

Among other things, you ought to look up the projected benefit to Japan, as assessed by its own researchers, of the agricultural produce in Australia.

So why did Japan focus on Siberia as the preferred objective to the southern thrust, but choose the southern thrust because of its assessment that it could not prevail in Siberia?

#69

At the risk of pissing off all Indian members, it is an unfortunate fact that Indians do not always share an American / British / other English speaking peoples’ sense of urgency and attention to detail when producing things.

The best example comes from an Australian friend who manages a large contingent in India for an Australian company. There was to be an unveiling ceremony in India, after much fanfare within the corporation and locally in India.

The CEO and assorted dignitaries and audience duly attended the ceremony where the Australian CEO made a speech and all the usual drivel on such occassions occurred. Then the CEO pulled the cord to open the curtains over the plaque.

A piece of paper was taped to the wall where the plaque was expected to be. Written on it was “This is where the plaque will be.”.

#70

Originally Posted by samjok View Post
Another incredible blunder is the lack of an adequate radar system in Singapore-Malaya to render the British planes far more effective. Unlike the BoB, the few were left almost without eyes.

Chain Home contrary to popular belief was more than just the RADAR itself, it was the whole command, control and reporting system. It was barely finished in time for the BoB. The whole Chain Home system of radars was not fully complete until 1944.
It was constantly developed and improved as inadequacies were found during its use.
It was expensive to set up and took several years to get to its initial basic state as used at the start of the BoB. So with the threat to the UK the technology and engineers should have been sent to a potential war zone as opposed to staying in an actual one ?

Britain was not well equipped to fight a war in 1940, it was better than it had been but was still not ready. I gave you links so you could actually see what the UK’s finances were like and how they were spent in the time leading up to WW2, you seem to have ignored them though with your constant ‘Should have, could have, would have’

#71

My point is that Stalin was as much the enemy as Germany and in the huge USSR the hundreds of Hurricanes helped much less than in SIngapore, Ceylon and Burma, where they could have been decisive. It would have also made sense for Stalin to provide a few thousand T-34s to the British, Americans and Chinese in 1944, when he was swimming in them, but he certainly did not provide them. Likewise, Stalin could have certainly provided millions of the Psh-41 submachine gun to the Chinese communists, British, etc, and some of the half million cannon he produced, but he did not provide any of these things to his allies, he just took everything he could.

Hurricanes were often transported by aircraft carriers, not very susceptible to commerce raiders.

Besides gaining access to the invaluable oil ot the middle east and to the Baku, displacing the British from the Indian Ocean would have given access to the minerals in India, east and south Africa, the USSR, etc,
What strategic minerals could Japan gain from Australia (like I said they had iron ore in Manchuria), which was far away and which they could eventually capture after isolating it from Britain.

If the Indians had not placed the plaque, it was the fault of the manager. Akbar the great conquered more than Napoleon did, with more modern weapons and more efficient armies, centuries earlier. The Arabs have also had periods in whch they were far more advanced than the Europeans, cientifically, artistically, legally, medically and tecnically. It all depends on the leaders. The Mongols had more mobile and effective armies than those of the early 19th century Europeans and were a bunch of nomads, it’s all in the leaders.

Even Hawaii had a Radar station with British technology, which would have been cheaper and more useful than the naval base in Singapore. You don’t have to cover the whole pennsula with stations just warn the major airfield before it is wiped out by bombers from Indochina.

#72

I thought the point of this was that Mr Churchill was an inept, and incompetent leader. Quote:"Mi (Sic) point is that it would have been difficult to lead such a powerful nation more incompetently (than)(Churchill and his generals). "
Now your point is that Stalin was selfish in not sharing his toys to your satisfaction? How does this Grand epiphany support your assertion that Mr. Churchill was incompetent? Just how many points do you intend to ear mark to this thread?

#73

Having Iron ore in Manchuria was great (so why was the US embargo so hurtful), did they control it, was it still being mined, where was it smelted, how was it transported, where were the rolling mills, where was it needed to be used. Likewise for all the other minerals, they need to be able to be processed and transported to where they are needed.

All the above need considering as well, not just they had ore as on its own it means nothing. The shipping routes need protecting constantly, as do the factories etc if you have them. This ties up resources.
Japan already had a tangle with the Russians and lost, they were tied up in China with a major part of their Army, they were short of resources, all these were facts.
Going to the middle east with their troops and tanks would have sent them to where Britain was doing quite well at the start and had alot of experience. Would the same sort of panic as happened to some British and commonwealth units in the jungle where the Japanese were better fighters happen there. Closer to British supply routes and where the majority of British troops and equipment were and along way from the Japanese own. With a lack of tanks and transport those areas a pretty huge to cover.
Where was this huge manpower going to come from to cover this whole area, some Indians did join the Japanese side but I have no idea whether there would have been a large uprising in support of the Japanese to overthrow the British Raj (maybe you could chuck that into your fanciful plans and claims)

I already said why a Radar on its own is no use and with the primitive systems developed by the British at the time you did need a whole chain of them everywhere as who can say where the attack is coming from.

Yes Britain needed Soviet tanks in 1944 along with the problems of spare parts crew training ammunition supply etc etc etc. It was bad enough with the three basic models in use in Britsh Armoured Divisions as it was.
That was why the RAF provided Pilots and ground crew for the Soviets with the first two Hurricane Squadrons, to train the Soviet crews. Still waiting for some actual checkable figures to back up a single one of your claims, in 1944 Britain had more tanks in reserve than crews for them.

You probably need to start reading up on some losses of vehicles etc by the various nations in the different theatres. Valentines sent to Russia in 41/42 were still in some units in 1944 along with totally Sherman equipped Divisions, likewise some Soviet units were equipped wholly with captured German tanks. Why would they need to do that if they were swimming in excess T34, KV, JS tanks etc.

#74

The embargo was very detrimental for the Japs, because they needed a lot of oil for their ships, airplanes, etc, and to a lesser extent because melting scrap iron requires a small fraction of the energy required to smelt ore (remove the oxygen). Transporting iron ore from Manchuria to Japan required much less fuel and ship time than transporting it from Australia.
The Japanese fought very well offensively whenever they had air superiority and support (like all the troops in WW II), including in the desertic part of China and Burma and defensively even without it. They suffered in the Jungle tremendously in Guadalcanal, New Guinea, etc, (which provided absoultely nothing to Japan) and in Burma and wasted hundreds of thousands of troops abandoned in Wewak, etc, By the way Madagascar has jungle, if you want the Japs to fight in the jungle.

I have already discussed that Khalkhin Gol was not a well planed and supplied offensive, just a border brawl far away from the Japanese supply lines and the USRR was not being choked by Germany at the time.

The British were more advanced in Radar than the US. There was only one mobile Radar station in Hawaii and it determined the direction and the large number of planes, with rather inexperienced technicians on Dec 7.

In any reasonable partnership, the Americans would have concentrated on producing somethings and would expect at least something from the other partners. As it was, Stalin just received and didn’t provide anything (the ships sailed back empty, what a waste of fuel and personnel). Stalin also demanded the invasion of France, etc, but always refused to attack Japan, until Germany fell. The Americans had to produced everything they needed and everything Stalin and Churchill needed and the ships to transport the goods and also fight on two fronts, while Stalin fought exclusively the Germans and Churchill mostly the Italians and Germans and did extremely little against the Japanese before 1945. Do you really think it was a reasonable policy for Roosevelt, who certainly knew that Stalin was as much of an SOB as HItler, if not worse and that he would take over Europe after defeating Hitler? what was the point of trading a small monster for a larger one?

Isn’t it incredible that the US would supply thousands of specially made Diesel Shermans to Stalin? meantime the AMerican tankers called their tanks the Ronson lighter, because the gasoline lit up at the first impact. The Soviet military were so daft that although they produced far more tanks than Germany and Germany had to use its tanks on two fronts and although Stalin produced a ridiculously exagerated number of tank busting Sturmoviks, antitank cannon, antitank mines, etc, Soviet tank losses remained very high and Stalin still saved his thousands of precious T-34 as much as he could for the invasion of Europe. Even when they finally broke out of Leningrad late in the war, Stalin was sending his disposable tankers in obsolete tanks against the much improved German tanks, even when he was literally swimming in T-34s. Even after Germany fell, he used some obsolete tanks against Japan. Like I said, had the atomic bombnot worked, he would have certainly taken all of Europe.

#75

Even after Germany fell, he used some obsolete tanks against Japan. The T34/85,IS2,IS3,IS122 and IS152 were obsolete?

#76

Hi Boyne,some BT-7 tanks were employed by the Soviets in the August 1945 action against the Japanese in Manchuria. Although it was an older model, I(personally) would be reluctant to class it as obsolete to the point of being useless, as it was more than a match for the Japanese armor it would face. But that does not mean that the newer Soviet AFV’s were excluded from the action. http://ww2worldwar2.com/soviet-light-tank-bt-7/

#77

Hi tankgeezer,thanks for the info and link.I was aware that not all the tanks used in Manchuria were the latest models,it was the statement from samjok i was questioning.Did the Soviets have something better to use than the types i mentioned.Regards and thanks again.

#78

I think you covered their armor inventory pretty well, obsolete for that time would be the T-60, the T-26, the BT-2,(all made of crisps, and treacle) all of those really early vehicles. But the BT-7 was updated several times to keep it viable, better automotive, better gun, better protection etc.

#79

No, because the US supply lines weren’t set up to shift diesel fuel about. The reputation of Shermans for catching light easily comes from Normandy where, due to uncertain supply lines, crews carried loose ammunition lying around the inside of the tank. Later, when the supply situation stabilized, they only carried it in the ammo bins (which had water jackets) and the problem went away.

#80

In any reasonable partnership, the Americans would have concentrated on producing somethings and would expect at least something from the other partners. As it was, Stalin just received and didn’t provide anything (the ships sailed back empty, what a waste of fuel and personnel). Stalin also demanded the invasion of France, etc, but always refused to attack Japan, until Germany fell

So the Soviet Union providing millions of men and tying up the majority of German Forces gave nothing to the rest of the allies !
What was the Soviet Union supposed to send back to the rest of the Allies ?
Why would Stalin wish to attack Japan when it was already in a war for its survival with Germany and its allies. As far as Stalin was concerned the Soviet Union was doing all the fighting and dying against Germany while the Allies sat back.
The US got paid for the goods it sent, there was also something called reverse lend lease where the Commonwealth at least sent supplies and equipment to the US. There were also a lot of plans laid for the post war world with the USA coming out best in terms of agreements made during the war.

Stalin produced a ridiculously exagerated number of tank busting Sturmoviks, antitank cannon, antitank mines, etc, Soviet tank losses remained very high and Stalin still saved his thousands of precious T-34 as much as he could for the invasion of Europe.

Once again I ask provide figures not just your opinionated claims. You have yet to answer a single one of your claims with figures you can back up. You want to go to some of the Soviet/German battlefields and see the reason why Soviet tank losses were high the Seelowe Heights would be good. When an Army attacks fortified positions it will in most cases lose more than the defender.
Ridiculously exagerated number so you mean they did not produce the number claimed ? provide figures for claimed and actually built.

The Sherman had a bad reputation (Tommy Cooker, Ronson, etc) due to its seeming ease of bursting into flames. Contrary to popular belief it was not the fuel causing this but the ammunition stowage. As has already been said once the ammunition was moved below the turret ring and placed under the turret floor with ready use rounds stored in wet lockers it suffered much less but myths tend to take hold.

Do you really think it was a reasonable policy for Roosevelt, who certainly knew that Stalin was as much of an SOB as HItler, if not worse and that he would take over Europe after defeating Hitler? what was the point of trading a small monster for a larger one?

Some Quotes from the main three Allied leaders

Stalin is not that kind of man. . . He doesn’t want anything but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.

—Franklin Roosevelt

This war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes his own social system on it. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. It cannot be otherwise.

—Joseph Stalin

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an “iron curtain” has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.

Winston Churchill ‘5th March 1946’

The Americans had to produced everything they needed and everything Stalin and Churchill needed and the ships to transport the goods and also fight on two fronts, while Stalin fought exclusively the Germans and Churchill mostly the Italians and Germans and did extremely little against the Japanese before 1945

So the USA produced everything the UK needed wow I need to learn more as I was sure British and Commonwealth countries were producing huge amounts of war material as well. Where were the factories in America producing the Soviet tanks and Aircraft, they were a huge secret managing to keep it quiet that the USA was producing the T34, Migs, ah now I see the exagerated claims for Sturmoviks come in here.

The Allies were persuing a policy of Germany first, German occupied Europe was next door to Britain so do you really think it should have sent more against Japan (dont forget Britain had been at war since 1939 and was pretty broke and stretched for manpower). I will be sure to let the Burma Vets know they did very little at my next RBL meeting.